Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Minnesota. I commend him for this amendment. This is a very creative amendment because it doesn't go to the heart of what many of us have felt for a long time, and that is that as we have done with Presidential elections--I don't know if my colleague from Minnesota spent time on this point--we have had public financing of Presidential races. Ronald Reagan, George Bush, this President Bush, and President Clinton have all used public moneys in Presidential elections going back to the late 1970s. I believe President Reagan was the first--maybe President Carter was the one--to use public moneys and public financing of a Presidential election. All would agree that as a result of that, the costs of Presidential elections, while they are expensive, have been reduced by having a public financing scheme where, as a result of accepting public dollars, candidates agree to certain caps, certain limitations on how much money will be spent by a Presidential candidate. This country is not without precedent in dealing with public financing. My colleague has talked about some of the States that have done things. We have done it at the national level and with some success. This amendment doesn't call for Federal public financing, as I understand it. It merely says to the States, if they would like to establish a public financing mechanism for candidates running for the House of Representatives or the Senate, the two Federal offices for which there are elections in each State, then the States would be allowed to construct such a mechanism that then-candidates who would agree to accept public moneys in those States would also accept certain limitations, principally financial ones, as one way of trying to get a better handle on this ever spiraling cost of campaigns. I don't have the charts with me that some of our other colleagues have used which point to the exponential increase in the cost of running for Federal office. There is not a person in this Chamber who holds a seat who can't bear witness to that fact. We wouldn't be here if we hadn't gone through the excruciating gauntlet of having to raise the money and spend the dollars in order to be on television and run all the various elements of a successful campaign. We are all familiar, every one of us, with how vastly these campaigns have increased in cost. I have often cited the statistic that when I first ran for Congress, some 24 years ago, Ella Grasso was running for Governor of the State of Connecticut, the first woman to be elected in her own right as a Governor in the United States. Ella Grasso spent about $500,000, an unprecedented amount of money, in the State of Connecticut to win a statewide race. I think she even bought New York television time, which always adds considerably to the cost of a campaign in Connecticut. And $500,000 was an outrageous sum of money 24 years ago. My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and I--I can't recall the exact amount, but I will pretty much be in the ballpark to tell the Senate that a contested race in Connecticut is now somewhere between $4 and $6 million. I promise you, if you went back 24 years, prior to 1974, you would have found an increase in the cost of campaigns but nothing like we have seen in the last 25 years, with no indication this trend line is going anywhere but up in the coming years. The issue before us is whether or not we can come up with some mechanism which reduces the money chase, brings down the cost of these campaigns, which is what the Torricelli amendment tries to do by insisting the lowest unit rate be charged for campaign costs for advertising, and now what our colleague from Minnesota has proposed-- that is, the creative idea of saying to the 50 States that if you decide you would like to have this kind of a mechanism for your candidates for Federal office, we should not necessarily stand in the way. If this were a mandate, then I think it would run into immediate constitutional problems. There may be some with this anyway. I know States in the past have tried to pass legislation which would put limitations on us, such as term limits. In every one of those cases, the courts have overruled State statutes which would limit the ability of people to serve here. We ourselves could put limitations in the Constitution on our service, but States don't have the right, according to the Supreme Court or the Federal courts, to do that. I do not think this amendment falls into that category. This is not some limitation on a Member's right to run or to serve. It merely offers the option of a different mechanism for financing the campaign. While I am not a constitutional scholar, I am sure there will be those who make the case that this may suffer from a constitutional flaw. I am sure there will be others who will argue that this does not. In my view, because this does go in a direction that contributes significantly to the underlying bill Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have submitted to us, it is worthy of support. I commend my colleague from Minnesota for offering this creative idea. We are constantly hearing from our colleagues how we need to give our States more flexibility. It is a call we hear quite frequently in one piece of legislation after another. My colleague from Minnesota and I serve on the Education Committee of the Senate. We have just spent a number of days--marking up, as we call it--writing up the education bill for elementary and secondary education. One of the important debates was how much flexibility we would give our local communities and our States in using Federal dollars. It is a worthy debate because most of us embrace the idea that local communities ought to have a great deal of latitude in deciding how the education system ought to work in those communities. I will be interested to know if those who are most vociferous in arguing for greater flexibility at the State level in the education of our children would not similarly be inclined to support this amendment which would offer greater flexibility to our States that may decide that the cost of campaigns in their States has gotten out of control; that they would like to do something about it; that they would like to offer Federal candidates an option that would reduce those costs. I am attracted to this amendment. I think it has value. I urge my colleagues to read it carefully, to raise questions to my colleague from Minnesota, if they have them, and then vote for this amendment. I think it deserves our support. I know others will come to the floor to address this matter. I don't know if my colleague care to take a few more minutes or not. I am prepared to stay with him and engage in some debate. If not, we could suggest the absence of a quorum and urge Members to come to the floor to discuss the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Florida be recognized to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business and that the time not be charged to the present amendment.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. Should we have full disclosure?

Mr. DODD. Of course you may. It is your time, Senator.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield whatever time the Senator from New Jersey would care to take for the purpose of introducing his amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. The idea would be I think at that point, depending on what leadership wants, to lay down the Torricelli amendment. I gather there is some event this evening that people believe they are obligated to attend. The Torricelli amendment will be laid down, and we will begin debate on that in the morning at whatever time the leader wants to come in. We might get a time agreement in the morning on that. I have several amendments I am lining up for tomorrow afternoon. So we will have a clear flow by tomorrow morning as to the amendments we will be proposing tomorrow during the day.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to my good friend and colleague from the State of New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. DODD. In the meantime, Mr. President, if I may, Members who want to be heard on the bill itself should take advantage of the time. I suspect the Smith amendment will not consume all of the hour and a half. We urge Members who want to make statements on the bill to please come to the floor. I see now our colleague from Oregon is here. While he is getting organized, let me in response to my friend from Kentucky regarding the last amendment that it was not just about labor unions. This last amendment also covered corporations and membership organizations, among a few others. The 1974 law made it very specific. We said that general treasury funds from those organizations could be used to establish, administrate, and solicit contributions to be used for political purposes, such as communicating only with their restricted class or membership. That makes them distinct and different from the other organizations which can communicate with the universe. But these organizations can only communicate with their members. For that reason, the 1974 law specifically wrote into the law that general treasury funds, if you will, could be used for the purposes of communication. So it was not just about labor unions, it was also about corporations, membership organizations and other such entities that are confined to communications with their own members.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Michigan.

Mr. DODD. The March of Dimes event I know is very important. Maybe we can aim for 6 p.m. It will obviously depend on what Senator Gordon Smith wants to do.

Mr. DODD. In that case, knowing that my colleague from Alaska may be doing the cooking, Members may want to stay until 10 tonight.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. I understand that. My point was those who oppose the bill feel as though individuals ought to be able to make whatever contributions they want in soft money. I was making the observation as a contradiction.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. That raises a concern. I have been around long enough to sense when something will happen. I get a sense this amendment will be adopted and maybe by some significant numbers based on the sponsorships and the statements made. I will oppose the amendment. I may be the only person opposing it, but I am deeply worried about it. The mere fact that we will vote in an hour on a highly complicated, very lengthy amendment that goes to a significant issue in this debate, and I cannot look at it, is an indication of the kind of trouble we may be getting ourselves into. I appreciate the constraints of the managers and the leadership to move this debate along. However, I am troubled. Let me state why. I have great respect for the authors. We are trying to accomplish something. I have been, myself, a candidate with an opponent who announced they would spend significant millions of their own money against me, so I am not unfamiliar with facing a challenger who has great personal wealth. However, it seems to me this is what I would call incumbency protection. We are all incumbents in the Senate. We raise money all the time during our incumbency. I suspect most sitting Members who have some intention of running again have amassed something between $\1/2\ million and $1 million. If you have been here for a couple of years, I suspect you have done that. If you have been here longer, I know colleagues have amounts in excess of $3, $5, and $7 million sitting in accounts, earning interest, waiting for the next time they run. I don't like the idea of a multimillionaire going out and writing checks and running, I suppose. I understand the law. The Constitution says if an individual in this country wants to spend his or her money that way, there is nothing we can do here to stop them. What you are trying to do is level the playing field. It isn't exactly level, in a sense, when we are talking about incumbents who have treasuries of significant amounts and the power of the office which allows us to be in the press every day, if we want. We can send franked mail to our constituents at no cost to us. It is a cost of the taxpayer. We do radio and television shows. We can go back to our States with subsidized airfares. We campaign all across our jurisdictions. The idea that somehow we are sort of impoverished candidates when facing a challenger who may decide they are going to take out a loan, and not necessarily even have the money in the account but may decide to mortgage their house--I don't recommend that as a candidate. But there are people who do it. They go out and mortgage their homes. I presume if you mortgage your house, that is money in your account. It is not distinguished in this amendment. You go into debt. For people who decide they want to do that and meet that trigger, all of a sudden that allows me as an incumbent to raise, I guess, $3 million at one level, $3,000 at one level, and $6,000 at another. The gates are open, and the race is on. I am just worried that we are going in the absolute opposite direction of what the McCain-Feingold bill is designed to do. Again, I find it somewhat ironic that we are here deeply worried about the capital that can be raised and the candidate who is going to spend a million dollars of his own money to level the playing field. But those who oppose this bill don't have any difficulty with that same individual writing out a million-dollar check in soft money, in a sense. It is somewhat of a contradiction to suggest somehow that we are going to protect ourselves against that million-dollar giver and we don't have anything here to restrain this million-dollar giver in soft money. I find that somewhat ironic. Again, I respect those who fundamentally disagree with McCain- Feingold. I don't agree with their arguments, but they have an argument to be made. It seems to me if we are going to go that route to do so, but the idea that all of a sudden we raise the threshold of hard money to $3,000 and $6,000 for an incumbent sitting with a treasury of significant money on hand, even though you may not be personally wealthy, but the fact is that you have this kind of money in your accounts--why not suggest, then, if you are an incumbent and, in the case of Wyoming, you go to $500,000, whatever the trigger is, I say to the Presiding Officer, or the Senator from Connecticut or California-- if I have that amount of money in my treasury, why not let the challenger, in a sense, reach the $3,000 and $6,000 level of individual contributions in order to challenge me if I have it not in my own personal account but in my political account?

Mr. DODD. Certainly.

Mr. DODD. I understand some are going to try to do that. I am not going to support it. But I understand there will be an effort to do that.

Mr. DODD. That very race that I think my colleague is talking about was a fairly close race in the end. I can think of two specifically where, in fact, the individual raising that kind of money became a liability, and they lost. I would like to reclaim my time.

Mr. DODD. I appreciate that. I come back to my point. I know there are super wealthy candidates. I guarantee that there are a lot more incumbents sitting with super treasuries seeking reelection than there are individuals with vast amounts of money seeking Senate seats. We have them, but it doesn't automatically mean that they are guaranteed a seat. You see it in several jurisdictions. My colleagues know what I am talking about and know the races specifically that I am referring to where millions of dollars was spent by individuals who financed their own campaigns, and they lost. In fact, I think they lost in no small measure because people were somewhat disgusted by the fact that they were giving the impression of buying a Senate seat. The mere fact you write checks out of your own personal account does not guarantee you a seat in the Senate. We are clearly moving in the wrong direction. My issue is not that there is too little money in politics. I think there is too much. I hear my colleagues say the $1,000 needs to be increased. My big worry is what happens to that $25 contributor, the $50 or $100 contributor who we used to rely on and call upon to help support these candidates? We don't pay attention to them anymore. We spend all of our time looking for the large contributors. By the way, a large contributor is $1,000 in my book or, a person who gives $2,000. Now we are going to raise it to $3,000 and $6,000 with the mere suggestion that you might finance $500,000 or $1 million in a Senate election. So the doors are open. Now the argument is made that we have done it here and we ought to do it over there for the other side as well. All of a sudden, we have opened the gates, and we are up to $3,000, and $6,000, and forget about that $50 contributor, that small individual we are trying to engage in the political life of America. They are not going to get any attention whatsoever. My view is that is dangerous. I think it is worthwhile that people are invested in the political life of America with their time and their financial resources. I have no objection whatsoever to the idea that people write a check to support candidates of their choice for State, local and national office. What I find deeply troubling is that they no longer will be solicited because their contribution doesn't amount to anything because we are going to go after the big-dollar givers, the $3,000 giver and the $6,000 giver. What percentage of Americans can actually do that? If we are financing elections across the board for the House and the Senate by only soliciting those kinds of contributions, or at least the bulk of those people, I think we are putting our democracy in peril. I understand the concern my colleagues and incumbents have about facing the wealthy opponent. But I don't think that concern should outweigh our determination to try to reduce the amount of money that is entering political life in America. By adopting this amendment, as much as I empathize and understand the concerns my colleagues have, it looks to me as though all we are doing is trying to protect ourselves rather than trying to level that playing field. If I am the only one to oppose it, I will do so. Despite the good intentions of the authors of this amendment, I think it takes us in exactly the wrong direction. I think it makes a mockery of McCain-Feingold. I think we are beginning to just shred that piece of legislation. I know there is a strong determination to get a bill, but a bill that has McCain-Feingold's name on it, and ends up doing what this amendment would do, I do not think deserves the label it might otherwise get. With that, Mr. President, I will oppose the amendment and yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague would yield, my fear is once we have done that, we are raising, of course, the hard limits, which takes us, as far as I am concerned, in the wrong direction with the bill. I respect those who say they are going to be raised anyway. But my concern is that if we keep on ratcheting up those levels, then we are running contrary to what I hope are the underlying motivations behind the underlying bill. So I merely pointed it out to show the inconsistency in someone's personal wealth and a person's political wealth. We are applying one standard on personal wealth and not the same standard on political wealth. I appreciate the point. Someone else may offer the amendment. But I thank the Senator for raising the point.

Mr. DODD. If I can make a point, my concern is that I don't know if I have the final version of this amendment. I gather still technical changes are being made as we stand here. I count 20 pages to this amendment. Am I right, roughly 20 pages?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from West Virginia. In the midst of a debate on campaign finance reform, this was a needed respite from the minutia of fundraising, attempts to modify the present system. His words of eloquence are always welcome in this body but never more so than in the midst of the debate today. I appreciate his quoting of Robert Burns and Browning and Wordsworth, but listening to him describe the arrival of spring and the departure of winter is poetic in itself. I can see one day people quoting Robert C. Byrd, the poet, when they welcome the spring at some future year.